Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis (CA) is an empirical approach to the study of social interaction which claims there can be order found at all points within talk-in-interaction. CA takes spontaneous talk and rigorously scours its minutiae for interesting patterns. With my propensity for pedantry, I very soon found myself at home amongst the conversation analytic literature introduced to me in Analysing Talk-in-Interaction. It was my enthusiasm and engagement in these classes that (indirectly) played a vital role in me pursuing an autism diagnosis, and my autism which has played a vital role in my enthusiasm for and engagement with CA. In the two years that I have identified as a conversation analyst, I have attended (and self-funded) six CA courses at the University of York, run by first and second generation conversation analysts. Four of the courses respectively focused on a 'cornerstone' of CA: turn-taking; sequence organisation; repair; and word selection. Throughout these courses, I realised that the people whose names reside on the spines of books and the tops of journal articles are simply that – people. They were people I chatted with over lunch, they were people who answered my e-mails at 8pm at night, they were people who, by being ordinary, had an extraordinary impact on my academic life. In no particular order, I owe thanks to the following people: * Celia Kitzinger * Sue Wilkinson * Ray Wilkinson * Gene Lerner * Clare Jackson * Merran Toerien I was just a second year undergraduate amongst a sea of far more academically experienced individuals, but every single one of these people took me seriously and valued what I had to say. Turn-Taking As CA's fundamental basis is that of 'order at all points', we will begin at the most sensible point – turn-taking. Conversations unfold turn-by-turn, with each speaker initially entitled to taking one turn at a time. Turns are made up of turn constructional units (TCUs) – the smallest segment of talk which could form a complete turn. When people interact, turn-taking usually occurs with little conscious thought. Gaps and pauses rarely occur as a result of 'processing' the prior speakers' turn, and simultaneous talk is rarely the result of the intent to interrupt. Sequence Organisation The simplest sequence is a two-turn question and answer sequence: A: Would you like some tea? B: I'll have some raspberry tea, please. Sequence organisation relates to the sequential placement of turns within the larger context of the interaction, and interactants' abilities to keep track of where they are in a sequence allows for some remarkably complex interactional gymnastics: A: Would you like some tea?1 B: What options are there?2 A: Green tea, fruit tea, and regular tea.2 B: What flavour is the fruit tea?3 A: Raspberry.3 B: I'll have some raspberry tea, please.1 Sequential organisation helps us understand others because "as social beings, we strive to make sense of and be made sense of by others, and so when our conversational partners produce an utterance, we evaluate it for its relevance in a sequence" (Attwood, 2017). This is called next-turn proof procedure, in that the next turn provides proof for the producer of how the recipient has taken them to mean. Repair Repair has been a fairly constant interest since I was first introduced to it in 2015, and it was one of the original main focuses of my dissertation. Repair can be implemented to deal with some problem with production, hearing or understanding. When I was sitting in the repair course run by Celia and Sue discussing fourth position repair, I began thinking of all the moments in my life when the 'penny has dropped' considerably later than it should have. I started making note of these instances, and analysing them on the fly – and every time there was a very logical explanation for my misunderstanding. These observations became the basis for my dissertation. Word Selection A turn is usually made up of words (gestures can also function as turns), and those words are selected by the speaker for a reason. When a woman living in a homophobic community chooses to use "partner" to refer to her girlfriend, one can inspect her choice of terminology. When you ask a friend to dog sit and tell them "it's only for a day" one can draw certain inferences about what purpose the word "only" serves. These choices are mostly done without much conscious awareness, but I am convinced I spend a disproportionately large amount of time and effort thinking about what words to use compared with others. I regularly stop to think how best to word something to avoid any sort of misconstrual. On the mutual benefit of CA and Politeness After discovering and immersing myself in CA for one short semester, I was introduced to politeness. Conversation analysts and politeness researchers have often been at odds with each other, with the former claiming that the talk provides all the information one could need, and the latter claiming that one needs to consider context to really understand social interaction. But I belong to both communities. Quite happily. And, along with Andrew Merrison, I have dedicated a portion of the last year to raising awareness of how one can inform the other (at LIAR IV and iMean5). With our conference papers, we have aimed to contribute "to the recent wave of work which aims to bring together insights from CA and socio-pragmatics to the explication of social interaction for the mutual beneficial gain of each" (Attwood & Merrison, forthcoming)Attwood, H. & Merrison, A. J. (forthcoming) Cultivating camaraderie in the workplace: analysing the relational work at work at work when managers manage rapport. Journal of Politeness Research Special Edition.. __FORCETOC__